Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 21 Sep 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 036 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Source for E-mail Policy Tool Kit Reason 19: Abuse RC4 posted in Cypherpunks Patient Privacy at Risk Reason 21: Data Surveillance US Govt Email Addresses Reaching Congress Re: FBI Wiretap Bill Re: Internet Spies Re: West Publishing - Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text --------------------------------------------------------------------- Housekeeping information is located at the end of this Digest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CLAY@mail.sdsu.edu (Robert D. Clay) Date: 19 Sep 1994 11:54:49 Subject: Source for E-mail Policy Tool Kit Organization: San Diego State University, Network Services Does anyone have a source for the following: Johnson, David R., and John Podesta. Access to and Use and Disclosure of Electronic Mail on Company Computer Systems: A Tool Kit for Formulating Your Company's Policy. Arlington, Va.: Electronic Mail Association, 1991. Please let me know. -- Bob Clay CLAY@mail.sdsu.edu ------------------------------ From: Marc Rotenberg Date: 19 Sep 1994 17:06:23 EST Subject: Reason 19: Abuse Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center 100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill Reason 19: Even with strong statutory safeguards in place, flagrant abuse of wiretap authority still occurs. In a case earlier this year a federal judge threw out all evidence obtained from FBI wiretaps in what was described as the most expensive white-collar investigation in Kansas City history. The 96-page report of the reviewing magistrate concluded that the FBI's affidavit "presented a disturbing pattern of material misstatements, overstatements and ommissions designed to mislead the issuing district court." The Kansas City Start described the outcome as a "stunning repudiation of FBI tactics." (2/9/94) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What To Do: Fax Rep. Jack Brooks (202-225-1584). Express your concerns about the FBI Wiretap proposal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100 Reasons is a project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC. For more information: 100.Reasons@epic.org. ======================================================================== ------------------------------ From: olcay@libtech.com (olcay cirit) Date: 19 Sep 94 15:31:38 PDT Subject: RC4 posted in Cypherpunks Is it true that the RC4 formula was posted in the Cypherpunks list? -- (| Olcay Cirit |) "Note that I have taken special measures to |) ----------------- (| restrain the computer to the desk in the (| olcay@libtech.com |) case that it may explode" - Olo ------------------------------ From: David Banisar Date: 20 Sep 1994 09:30:07 -0500 Subject: Patient Privacy at Risk Fwd from the Coalition for Patient Rights (CPRMA@aol.com) Alert Patient Privacy at Risk Contact the ACLU The ACLU appears on a list of endorsers of the Wofford/Dodd amendment which amends one of the Senate health care reform bills. Major portions of W/D would have a severely adverse impact on the confidentiality of medical records. Although W/D has been rendered partly obsolete as newer health care reform bills are advanced under new names and new coalitions, many of its principal features remain intact in the new bills. It has become a reference point. It is for this reason that the signature of the ACLU on a list of endorsers of W/D (on a document entitled "Wofford/Dodd Fact Sheet") is so troubling and so damaging. The amendment creates federal standards for the disclosure of personally identifiable health care information and establishes a framework for a national health care data network. On the surface, the goals seem good. Who wouldn't be for establishing strict federal guidelines to ensure privacy where none existed before? For that matter, why not support a data network that would allow a treating physician to have immediate access to all pertinent medical information? Clearly we have to look beyond the advertisement and into the details of the bills for the answers to these questions. For example, in Sec. 508(a) of Mitchell 3 (the bill offered by the Senate majority leader), the "health information network service" is made the agent of the provider. This means that once a third party bureaucratic agency receives the information electronically, it is deemed the same as the health care provider in making decisions about the release of the information. Sensitive medical information, including intimate psychological information, would be available electronically to an increasing number of people legally--not to mention the well-documented risks of illegal access. Among those with enhanced access would be law enforcement officials and government agencies. Even researchers could access personally identifiable health information, if an institutional review board holds that the project is "of sufficient importance to outweigh the intrusion into the privacy of the person who is the subject of the information." The patient has no right to refuse such disclosure even though it includes his or her name. There are many examples of person-identified medical information, including sensitive personal information, that have been shared with health care providers with the expectation of privacy that would now be legally accessible to many third parties. The argument is made that this kind of access already exists, so why not codify it. The logic is faulty. It is true we already have serious problems protecting the privacy of medical records in this country. Legally sanctioning medical access to an ever enlarging list of third parties is not the solution. It will only compound an already serious problem. A compelling argument has been made that the establishment of a national health care data network that requires all providers to disclose information about every patient contact would violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures" of the person. Many organizations have raised serious concerns about Wofford/Dodd, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, Coalition for Patient Rights, National Organization of Women, and the AIDS Action Council. We hope that the ACLU joins us in support of genuine privacy legislation. We hope that there was an error when it appeared on a short list of supporters of Wofford/Dodd (June 10, 1994) Call your state chapter of the ACLU. It is listed as Civil Liberties Union of (your state) in the white pages. Let them know of your concern.If possible, also fax Laura Murphy Lee at the ACLU in Washington (202-546-0738) and let her know your concern regarding the position of the ACLU in supporting W/D. This alert is provided by the Coalition for Patient Rights, Massachusetts (617, 433-0114). ------------------------------ From: Marc Rotenberg Date: 19 Sep 1994 17:06:23 EST Subject: Reason 21: Data Surveillance Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center 100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill Reason 21: The wiretap bill mandates new technologies for data surveillance The wiretap bill says that "a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that it can enable government access to call-identifying information." This is the first time the U.S. government has required by law that communications networks be designed to facilitate electronic data surveillance. Telecommunications firms, equipment manufacturers, and those who work in the hi-tech industry face a legal obligation to design networks for electronic monitoring. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What To Do: Fax Rep. Jack Brooks (202-225-1584). Express your concerns about the FBI Wiretap proposal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100 Reasons is a project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC. For more information: 100.Reasons@epic.org. ======================================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 20 Sep 1994 12:26:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: US Govt Email Addresses Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee This information has been taken from the Computer Underground Digest Sun Sep 17, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 82 ISSN 1004-042X From: Grace.York@UM.CC.UMICH.EDU Date: 15 Sep 94 14:56 CDT Subject: Congressional E-Mail Addresses CONGRESSIONAL E-MAIL ADDRESSES United States Senate +------------------------------------------------------------ ST Name E-Mail Address +------------------------------------------------------------ ID Craig, Larry larry_craig@craig.senate.gov. MA Kennedy, Ted senate@kennedy.senate.gov NM Bingaman, Jeff Senator_Bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov VA Robb, Charles senator_robb@robb.senate.gov VT Leahy, Patrick senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov VT Jeffords, Jim vermont@jeffords.senate.gov +------------------------------------------------------------- United States House of Representatives +-------------------------------------------------------------- ST DS Name E-Mail Address +-------------------------------------------------------------- AR 4 Dickey, Jay JDICKEY@HR.HOUSE.GOV AZ 1 Coppersmith, Sam SAMAZ01@HR.HOUSE.GOV AZ 2 Pastor, Ed EDPASTOR@HR.HOUSE.GOV CA 1 Hamburg, Don HAMBURG@HR.HOUSE.GOV CA 7 Miller, George FGEORGEM@HR.HOUSE.GOV CA 12 Lantos, Tom TALK2TOM@HR.HOUSE.GOV CA 13 Stark, Pete PETEMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV CA 14 Eshoo, Anna ANNAGRAM@HR.HOUSE.GOV CO 2 Skaggs, David SKAGGS@HR.HOUSE.GOV CT 2 Gejdenson, Sam BOZRAH@HR.HOUSE.GOV CT 4 Shays, Christopher CSHAYS@HRA.HOUSE.GOV FL 6 Stearns, Cliff CSTEARNS@HR.HOUSE.GOV FL 20 Deutsch, Peter PDEUTSCH@HR.HOUSE.GOV GA 6 Gingrich, Newton GEORGIA6@HR.HOUSE.GOV IL 14 Hastert, Dennis DHASTERT@HR.HOUSE.GOV KA 1 Roberts, Pat EMAILPAST@HR.HOUSE.GOV ME 1 Andrews, Thomas TANDREWS@HR.HOUSE.GOV MI 3 Ehlers, Vernon CONGEHLR@HR.HOUSE.GOV MI 4 Camp, Dave DAVECAMP@HR.HOUSE.GOV MI 14 Conyers, John JCONYERS@HR.HOUSE.GOV MN 3 Ramstad, Jim MN03@HR.HOUSE.GOV MN 6 Grams, Rod RODGRAMS@HR.HOUSE.GOV NC 7 Rose, Charlie CROSE@HR.HOUSE.GOV NC 11 Taylor, Charles CHTAYLOR@HR.HOUSE.GOV NC 12 Watt, Mel MELMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV ND Pomeroy, Earl EPOMEROY@HR.HOUSE.GOV NJ 12 Zimmer, Dick DZIMMER@ZHR.HOUSE.GOV NY 7 Manton, Thomas TMANTON@HR.HOUSE.GOV NY 23 Boehlert, Sherwood BOEHLERT@HR.HOUSE.GOV NY 27 Paxon, Bill BPAXON@HR.HOUSE.GOV OH 2 Hoke, Martin HOKEMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV OK 5 Istook, Jr. Ernest ISTOOK@HR.HOUSE.GOV OR 1 Furse, Elizabeth FURSEOR1@HR.HOUSE.GOV OR 4 DeFazio, Pete PDEFAZIO@HR.HOUSE.GOV PA 16 Walker, Robert PA16@HR.HOUSE.GOV TX 3 Johnson, Sam SAMTX03@HR.HOUSE.GOV TX 6 Barton, Joe BARTON06@HR.HOUSE.GOV UT 2 Shepherd, Karen SHEPHERD@HR.HOUSE.GOV VA 6 Goodlatte, Bob TALK2BOB@HR.HOUSE.GOV VT Sanders, Bernie BSANDERS@IGC,APC.ORG WA 1 Cantwell, Maria CANTWELL@HR.HOUSE.GOV WA 9 Kreidler, Mike KREIDLER@HR.HOUSE.GOV U.S. House of Representatives Committees Education and Labor Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations SLABMGNT@HR.HOUSE.GOV Natural Resources NATRES@HR.HOUSE.GOV Science, Space, and Technology HOUSESST@HR.HOUSE.GOV The above information was compiled from the Senate and House Gophers. Corrections/additions to grace.york@um.cc.umich.edu ------------------------------ From: "L. Jean Camp" Date: 19 Sep 1994 15:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reaching Congress To call any member of Congress, call 1-800-768-2221. This will connect you to the switchboard. ------------------------------ From: shabbir@panix.com (Shabbir J. Safdar) Date: 20 Sep 1994 00:24:59 -0400 Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill Organization: Panix Public Access (the best!) email info@panix.com Mark E Anderson writes: My take on this situation is pretty onerous. If there aren't any dissenting opinions on the sub-committee, can there be many votes against in the general House on a subject as complicated as this? Can public support be enmassed to block these bills when it's extremely difficult to explain to the average Joe as to their implications? I disagree strongly here. I work with a wide range of people, from very technical Unix heads to people who are scared when the screen changes colors, or their fonts are noticably altered. When you say to them that the contentious part about the FBI's Wiretap bill is, in a nutshell, a law that orders every major communications device to have a wiretap built into it, I tend to get more disbelief than lack of understanding. Most people seem to find it harder to believe than have trouble grasping the concept. I think the reason we don't see a lot of opposition on the committee is because of the lack of non-net folks informed about this issue. You can help change that. Educate your friends; use your fax machine. You can get materials for "spreading the word" from VTW's gopher at gopher.panix.com (look under VTW and Digital Telephony for the FAQ). I believe this really is an effort we must undertake. As technical professionals, we have a duty to alert and inform the rest of the nation and de-mystify this issue. -- Shabbir ------------------------------ From: josephl@clark.net (Joseph A. Liu) Date: 20 Sep 1994 05:48:19 GMT Subject: Re: Internet Spies Organization: Die! Laura Kissel Die! Laura Kissel (Kissell@gacsrv.gactr.uga.edu) wrote: : Have you noticed the people on the NET from SEARCHNET? I would be very : careful about what I said with these people around. Very funny.... ------------------------------ From: junger@pdj2-slip.dialin.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: 20 Sep 1994 13:46:34 GMT Subject: Re: West Publishing - Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text Organization: The residence of Peter D. Junger Robert Cray (robert@unlv.edu) wrote: Prof. L. P. Levine (levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu) wrote: According to the atty, OPS had obtained copies of West publications then tore the pages from the spine then scanned in the printed matter. OPS, apparently, deleted any material copyrighted by West then made the CD-ROM's from what was probably public domain material. Can anyone tell me the name of the case, case number, court it is in, name of defense lawyers or any other information? I am currently involved in trying to get the Nevada Revised Statutes released so they can be made available to the Internet. At my request our law library asked West for a copy of the opinion. And we recieved a Xerox copy of ``Joint Motion for Entry of Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment" from West's attorneys: Schatz Paquin Lockridge Grindal & Holstein in Minneapolis. It appears that this motion was entered as a judgment. It is never going to be reported anywhere; it is not an opinion. I am having my secretary prepare a LaTeX version of this motion. Which should be available by tomorrow. (My secretary is out today.) At that point I will explain how to get it by anonymous FTP--but I assure you that it is not very interesting and not a precedent for anything. My situation is a little different than that of OPS since I am doing this in cooperation with the state attorney generals office and with the state agency who publishes the statutes, and I am not at all interested in violating anyone's copyright including West's. None the less the attorneys involved would like to take a look at this case before we proceed with any action. Thanks in advance. -- Peter D. Junger -- Case Western Reserve Univ. Law School Home: junger@pdj2-slip.dialin.cwru.edu (preferred) Office: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu ------------------------------ The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy or vice versa. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". People with gopher capability can access the library at gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #036 ******************************